Evidence Against Evolution

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
do the research yourself, you think hes here to pander to your every whim?

Nope, he's just talking out his arse as usual.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You really expect an honest answer?

Was Tesla sensible?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Was Tesla sensible?

What does that mean?

Originally posted by sonhouse
What does that mean?

Well he discovered more practical ideas than any other inventor and apparently he got them all from visions.
Is it always sensible to be sensible?
(liked your blurb on the other thread. Alpha Centauri for sure)

Originally posted by RJHinds
The main problem is that even though the scientist are trying to figure out
an explanation, atheist will not wait for the tested proof to declare any
little thing that supports evolution as fact. They claim it is proven fact,
before it has been tested to see if it passes the tests. The Holy Bible is
not a fairy story pulled out of the air. What have y l found in the earth's crust and ocean
indicate the earth is only a few thousnd years old.

Dear me.

Well I have done some research, as you suggested (and have even avoided quoting non-religious sources) and have found this:

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/moondust.asp

In an important paper, geologist Dr Andrew Snelling from Australia’s Creation Science Foundation [now Answers in Genesis], and former Institute for Creation Research graduate student Dave Rush, have examined in minute detail all the evidence relating to this argument.1 They have shown that:

The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based.

Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age.

Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.


and from http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon.’ For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either).

So you are way out of date (nearly 20 years), even for a creationist! Did you already know your argument was invalid and so avoided requests for references in the hopes we would just accept your arguments (making you deceitful as well as naive)? Or did you just blindly regurgitate something you had heard without ever doing the tiniest bit of verification (making you gullible and unthinking)?

I may be being a little harsh here but I'm slightly fed up with having wasted 1/2 an hour of my life looking into this rubbish.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well he discovered more practical ideas than any other inventor and apparently he got them all from visions.
Is it always sensible to be sensible?
(liked your blurb on the other thread. Alpha Centauri for sure)

Thanks, I just wish I was in charge of NASA! Tesla lighted up the world for sure.
His high voltage experiments were decades ahead of his time. Too bad he had such a fight with Westinghouse about AC vs DC. In a way, Westinghouse was right also, of course you can convert AC with transformers and such but now we can do it also with DC with equally high voltages with semiconductor technology but Westy had no way of knowing that at the time. I think there are even pilot DC superconductor lines being developed, liquid N2 inside well insulated pipes with superconductors, can transfer many megawatts underground without having to have megavolt transmission lines above ground. So DC is making a comeback but for the era, Tessie was right. Too bad he died penniless. That should not have happened.

Some of his ideas were way out there, transmission of power wirelessly was one of them. Sure you can get some power across space but at a huge loss in efficiency.

Apple has just shown a pilot production of a resonant charging circuit that can efficiently charge laptops and phones and such at a distance of one meter so short range stuff is already being done.

Originally posted by Penguin
Dear me.

Well I have done some research, as you suggested (and have even avoided quoting non-religious sources) and have found this:

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/moondust.asp

[i]In an important paper, geologist Dr Andrew Snelling from Australia’s Creation Science Foundation [now Answers in Genesis], and former Institute for C ...[text shortened]... htly fed up with having wasted 1/2 an hour of my life looking into this rubbish.

--- Penguin

Just like Dawkins, when caught in an untruth, many scientist attempt to
cover up by devising another story and claim that it was a miunderstanding
on other peoples part or whatever makes them save face.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I think he makes up half the stuff he posts. Last time he talked about 'proof' of something it turned out he didn't know what the proof consisted of, but claimed some unnamed scientist somewhere had the proof. His failure to give a reference suggested to me that he made it up.

If I made it up, then will you agree I have a very creative mind like
God intended.

Originally posted by Penguin
Dear me.

Well I have done some research, as you suggested (and have even avoided quoting non-religious sources) and have found this:

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/moondust.asp

[i]In an important paper, geologist Dr Andrew Snelling from Australia’s Creation Science Foundation [now Answers in Genesis], and former Institute for C htly fed up with having wasted 1/2 an hour of my life looking into this rubbish.

--- Penguin

[/i]Based on RJHinds response, seems you weren't harsh enough.

Seems doubtful that he understood your post at all.

Originally posted by Penguin
Dear me.

Well I have done some research, as you suggested (and have even avoided quoting non-religious sources) and have found this:

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/moondust.asp

[i]In an important paper, geologist Dr Andrew Snelling from Australia’s Creation Science Foundation [now Answers in Genesis], and former Institute for C htly fed up with having wasted 1/2 an hour of my life looking into this rubbish.

--- Penguin

Do you have anything to prove that the formation of coal, oil, and gas
took millions of years and not just thousands? Did you know that wood and
other cellulose material have been converted into coal or coal-like substances
in a few hours. Plant-derived material has been converted into a good grade
of petroleum in about 20 minutes under the proper temperature and pressure
conditions. Evolutionist have claimed that coal was formed millions of years
before man evolved. However, human skeletons have been found in coal
deposits. Creationists say this is due to theGenesis flood that buried these
people in the sedimentary layers of the earth.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You really expect an honest answer?

One thing that you cannot presume about me is dishonesty,since you do not have any knowledge about me as a person. Do you resort to ad hominem argument in a discussion which is supposed to be friendly? Is this sign of a rationalist?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you have anything to prove that the formation of coal, oil, and gas
took millions of years and not just thousands? Did you know that wood and
other cellulose material have been converted into coal or coal-like substances
in a few hours. Plant-derived material has been converted into a good grade
of petroleum in about 20 minutes under the proper temp ...[text shortened]... his is due to theGenesis flood that buried these
people in the sedimentary layers of the earth.

will you ever post anything resembling proof? who found skeletons in coal? where? what where the dig conditions?

how in the high heavens do you expect anyone to debate you under these conditions? there is nothing to debate against.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
do the research yourself, you think hes here to pander to your every whim?

i don't suppose you will answer me about your link? yeh, i thought as much.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If I made it up, then will you agree I have a very creative mind like
God intended.

No, I just think you are a liar. Do you believe God intended that? Does it make you a good Christian?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I just think you are a liar. Do you believe God intended that? Does it make you a good Christian?

well there's a surprise you cannot provide and reason therefore you resort to the now obligatory, 'i think your a liar'. How does what you think, of another poster, carry any weight? Without reason its simply mere opinion! and chaff to the wind!